Bombay High Court held that there is no transfer of property in goods when furniture manufactured is transferred from one unit to other. Hence, there would be no violation of condition (i) or (vii) of the Notification No. 30/97-CUS dated 1 April 1997 as there is no transfer in violation of the actual user condition.
ITAT Pune held that addition of unexplained cash credit sustained as mere filing of documentary evidence doesnt absolve proving of genuineness and creditworthiness of the unsecured loans.
ITAT Bangalore held that deduction under section 10A/ 10B of the Income Tax Act allowable as the assessee has obtained post facto approval from RBI coupled with the fact that it has also realized the said amounts.
ITAT Mumbai held that income of non-resident not taxable in India merely because the status of the assessee was wrongly mentioned as resident in the original return of income.
CESTAT Mumbai held that claim of extra payment of tax without any documentary evidence (except arithmetical calculation) is not adjustable and unsustainable in law.
ITAT Dehradun held that Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board (UEPPCB) is a corporation which has been constituted under a Central Act, no tax was deductible. Accordingly, penalty u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied on a non-taxable entity.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act as unexplained investment unsustainable as the investment is out of the NRI Repatriation funds came outside India and which is not taxable in India.
ITAT Bangalore held that addition under section 69B of the Income Tax Act for unexplained investment solely on the basis of the document that didn’t contained name of the assessee is unsustainable as the same is outside the purview of definition of section 153C(1)(a) & (b).
ITAT Raipur held that charging of late fees of delay in filing of TDS statement under section 234E of the Income Tax Act is effective only from 01.06.2015. Charging the same for period prior to 01.06.2015 is untenable in law.
ITAT Delhi held that as no adjustment on transfer pricing issue would subsist and therefore there is no question of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on such addition.
